justi.fun protocol, rules and fees

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a static knowledge/policy surface rather than a live query, but says nothing about return shape, size, or caching behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a compact comma-delimited topic inventory. The list is dense and slightly comma-spliced, but every item is a genuine content pointer rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter reference tool with no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the covered topics. An agent knows exactly what questions this tool can answer before calling it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly signals that no arguments select a sub-topic, implying the whole reference is returned at once.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: what justi.fun is and how it works on chain, then enumerates the exact content domains (Meteora DBC program, fee tiers, sniper window, dev buy cap, graduation). This lets an agent distinguish it immediately from action-oriented siblings like justi_build_launch or justi_quote.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use this before explaining fees or building a launch" gives a concrete trigger condition tied to two downstream tasks. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool to use instead when this one is wrong, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.